| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Partners: Microsoft Still Trailing In Virtualization | |
|
||
| Time: 09:42 EST/14:42 GMT | News Source: CRN | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Despite the hubbub this week around Microsoft's release of what it calls a 'feature complete' release candidate of Hyper-V, its virtualization hypervisor, some channel partners say it still lacks features necessary compete with the likes of VMware and Citrix/Xensource.
In fact, despite Microsoft's insistence that Hyper-V won't be ready for launch until the August timeframe, some partners seem to be channeling former Wendy's spokesperson Clara 'Where's the Beef' Peller in their assessments of Hyper-V's current functionality.
"If this is what they call 'feature complete,' then Hyper-V is definitely number three on my radar after VMware and Xensource," said one virtualization solution provider and Microsoft partner, who requested anonymity. "There are certain capabilities that are glaringly absent from the platform, such as high availability, resource management, and memory overcommitment." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 306 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:21:24 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 92283 (64.180.201.131) at 3/21/2008 11:56:31 AM |
|
I think the argument that "memory overcommittement" is essential is debatable.
Don't get me wrong, I think the debate is wonderful and enjoyable to read. ""They were able to start 40 instances of Windows XP to achieve the 40 VMs, with 512MB of memory on a machine with only 4GB of RAM - a 5 times over commitment ratio. Of course they didn't actually run anything in them, because if you and I fired up Outlook, and IE (with our own mail boxes and choice of pages) you open word and I open PowerPoint very few memory pages will be sharable (I've got 47 pages open in IE right now, and it's using over 300MB of RAM, almost all for data). That means a lot of paging will have to happen in the virtualization stack. Brace yourself for really poor performance." http://weblog.infoworld.com/virtualization/archives/2008/03/everyone_chimes.html This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 11:57. |
| #2 By 92283 (64.180.201.131) at 3/21/2008 11:58:06 AM |
|
Or:
""The test he uses to support the claim is very impressive - if what you want to do is to power on virtual machines. If you're going to look at their screensavers all day while you do your work with a pencil and paper and abacus, power-on statistics are meaningful. And the moment you power on is the time you get the most out of page-sharing: nearly all pages are either operating system and services code pages (which are identical from guest to guest in many cases) or all-zero (which are all initially mapped to the same physical page)." He continues, "What do you think happens when those pages start to un-share, as people start doing real work? How big do you need to expand those balloons, and how much do you have to starve those guests, to keep your 5:1 memory allocation? And if you can't balloon 5:1, how much do you further degrade it when you start using the hypervisor swap file?"" |
| #3 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/21/2008 2:47:09 PM |
| How about some real-world tests. Fire up Lotus Notes on 8 XP VMs and you're already maxed on memory. |
| #4 By 54556 (67.131.75.3) at 3/21/2008 3:51:31 PM |
|
#1,2
I believe effective memory overcommitment capabilities are a very important factor in the efforts to maximize VM scalability (and conversely the effort to minimize ROI). The only issue is how well the varous implementations work in real life environments. |
| #5 By 9589 (71.49.188.113) at 3/21/2008 11:52:47 PM |
|
"I don't believe Microsoft will have a true competitor to ESX Server for at least another year, and it will certainly still be missing features which ESX Server has," Ward said.
What makes Ward so optimistic? Does he know something that the rest of us don't? What we know is Microsoft's product will not be out until August and most enterprise level customers won't touch it until the first service pack. All tolled, that is more than a year away for a product that doesn't compare to VMware's. The facts are that Microsoft is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind the curve in this space. VMware is the product of choice in the Enterprise, end of story. Instead of making a play for Yahoo!, Microsoft should be buying VMWare. And, hey!, there's a sale on! VMware's stock price has gotten the stuffing knocked out of it over the last several months. Microsoft could pick it up for half of what they are buying Yahoo! for. And, they could buy it by just writing a check - no need to go into debt like the Yahoo! aquisition will force them to do. |
| #6 By 92283 (64.180.201.131) at 3/22/2008 5:15:12 PM |
|
Hyper-V gives people something that works well ... with a very cheap buy-in.
I run Hyper-V on a Q6600 box that costs less than 1000$ with 4GB of memory. Does ESX have more features? Sure. Can you run ESX on just any box? Nope. Does ESX run VM's any faster than Hyper-V? I don't think so. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 306 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:21:24 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
